Disposed¶44

Firoj Khandakar v. Karabi Begum and Anr.

Gauhati HC17 Jun 2025Crl.Pet./784/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC inherent power quashing; Section 498-A IPC — simple cruelty (physical/mental harassment without dowry or unlawful demand) not an offence; legislative intent of S.498-A; Bhajan Lal guidelines applied; B.S. Joshi (2003) 4 SCC 675 relied on; wife's FIR 07.03.2024; charge sheet quashed; JMFC (M) Rangia; Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024; Charge Sheet No.53/2024; PRC Case No.124/2024; Gauhati High Court; Crl.Pet./784/2024; Firoj Khandakar v. Karabi Begum & State of Assam; judgment dated 18.06.2025 (CAV); heard 13.05.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing and setting aside of the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.124/2024 relating to Charge Sheet No.53/2024 in respect of Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024, pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (M), Rangia; the criminal petition disposed of accordingly. ¶44

Firoj Khandakar Vs Karabi Begum and Anr. — Gauhati HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.124/2024 relating to Charge Sheet No.53/2024 in respect of Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024 ought to be quashed in exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Applying the ratio in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, since there is no possibility of conviction, allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court; the case is fit for exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, and the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.124/2024 relating to Charge Sheet No.53/2024 in respect of Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024 are quashed and set aside.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted with a specific legislative intent — to penalise harassment aimed at coercing the wife or daughter-in-law to meet unlawful demands — and the intention of the legislature must be respected.

¶29

Key takeaways

Simple cruelty to the wife — physical or mental harassment unaccompanied by any demand for dowry or anything unlawful — does not amount to an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.ratio¶29
In the instant case there are no prima facie materials for establishing a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.), Crl.Pet./784/2024, judgment dated 18.06.2025 (CAV) — Quashing under Section 482 CrPC; scope of Section 498-A IPC. The petitioner-husband, charge-sheeted under Section 498-A IPC (Charge Sheet No.53/2024, Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024; PRC Case No.124/2024) on his wife's FIR alleging physical and mental harassment, sought quashing of the criminal proceedings. The Court held that the complainant had never alleged any demand for dowry or anything unlawful, and that simple cruelty — physical or mental harassment unaccompanied by such a demand — falls outside the expression 'cruelty' in Section 498-A IPC, which was inserted with the specific legislative intent of punishing harassment aimed at coercing the wife to meet unlawful demands (relying on B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675). Finding no prima facie materials for a Section 498-A case and no possibility of conviction, and holding the ratio in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 squarely applicable, the Court ruled that continuance would abuse the process of the court, exercised its inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, quashed and set aside the proceedings pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (M), Rangia, and disposed of the criminal petition.

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010127662024

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : Crl.Pet./784/2024

¶6

FIROJ KHANDAKAR

¶7

S/O HASAN KHANDAKAR, R/O VILL- BATHAN, P.S.-BAIHATA CHARIALI, P.O.-DUMUNICHAWKI, DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

KARABI BEGUM AND ANR D/O SYEDUR RAHMAN, VILL- GORIAPARA, P.O.-JALJALI, P.S.MONGOLDOI, DIST- DARRANG, ASSAM

¶10

2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSA

¶11

Advocate for the Petitioner : MS B R A SULTANA,

¶12

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, MR. SARFRAZ NAWAZ, AMICUS CURIAE (R-1)

¶13

:: PRESENT ::

¶14

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶15

For the Petitioner :

¶16

Ms. BRA Sultana, Advocate.

¶17

For the Respondent No.2: Mr. B. Sarmah, Addl. P.P., Assam. For the Respondent No.1: Mr. S. Nawaz, Amicus Curiae.

¶18

Page No.# 2/5

¶19

Date of Hearing : 13.05.2025. Date of Judgment : 18.06.2025.

¶20

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

¶21

Heard Ms. BRA Sultana, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Sarmah, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam (Respondent No.2) as well as Mr. S. Nawaz, the learned Amicus Curiae representing the Respondent No.1.

¶22

2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for quashing the criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.124/2024 relating to Charge Sheet No.53/2024 in respect of Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024.

¶23

3. On 07.03.2024, the Respondent No.1, Karabi Begum lodged an FIR before police alleging that her husband Firoj Khandakar, father-in-law Hasan Ali Khandakar and her mother-in-law Sayeeda Begum had been physically and mentally harassing her since her marriage. For that reason, Karabi Begum has been staying in the house of her father at Mangaldai. Till filing of the FIR, her husband and her family members did not keep any contact with her.

¶24

4. During investigation, it came to light that Karabi Begum did not have a good relationship with her husband Firoj Khandakar. It also came to light that Firoj Kahdakar had physically harassed Karabi Begum. Therefore, police filed the charge sheet against the petitioner Firoj Khandakar alleging commission of offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel of both sides. 6. Section 498-A was inserted into the Indian Penal Code by Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act of 1983. Chapter XXA was inserted by the Indian Penal Code of 1860 through the provision of Section 498-A, with an object to penalize the husband or the in-laws who torture or harass the wife or daughter-in-law with the aim of coercing or forcing her to meet any unlawful demands or to drive her to take away her own life.

¶26

Page No.# 3/5

¶27

7. In B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana , (2003) 4 SCC 675 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶28

“ 14. There is no doubt that the object of introducing Chapter XX-A containing Section 498-A in the Penal Code, 1860 was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband. Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry. The hypertechnical view would be counterproductive and would act against interests of women and against the object for which this provision was added. There is every likelihood that non-exercise of inherent power to quash the proceedings to meet the ends of justice would prevent women from settling earlier. That is not the object of Chapter XX-A of the Penal Code, 1860.”

¶29

8. Coming back to the case in hand, the complainant Karabi Begum never claimed that her husband or her relatives ever demanded dowry or demanded anything unlawful from her or her family. She has alleged that her husband physically and mentally harassed her. This cruel act on the part of Firoj Khandakar is outside the word “cruelty” as mentioned in Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code was inserted into the Code with a specific legislative intent and the intention of our legislature must be respected. For physical harassment meted out to the wife by her husband there may be some other offences. But simple cruelty to the wife does not amount to an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

9. In the instant case, there are no prima facie materials for establishing a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶31

10. The guidelines for consideration of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604. Paragraph 102 of the judgment reads as under:

¶32

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and

¶33

Page No.# 4/5

¶34

reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶35

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶36

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶37

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶38

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶39

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶40

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶41

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶42

11. This Court is of the opinion that the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal (supra) is squarely applicable in this case. There is no possibility of conviction in this case. So, allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court. Therefore, this is a fit case for exercising the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of the CrPC. The criminal proceedings of PRC Case No.124/2024 relating to Charge Sheet No.53/2024 in respect of Baihata P.S. Case No.76/2024, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class (M), Rangia, is quashed and set aside.

¶43

Page No.# 5/5

¶44

The criminal petition is disposed of.

¶45

JUDGE

¶46

Comparing Assistant

Firoj Khandakar v. Karabi Begum and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Firoj Khandakar v. Karabi Begum and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ali Akbar Alias Alu Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Jamidul Sk Alias Islam Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Hamidul Islam Vs the State of Assam

Hiramoni Saikia Vs the State of Assam

Nihar Prasad Sharma Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Lakshi Kanta Das Vs Smti. Baroda Das and Anr.